Yes, we have to accept that there might be casualties, but it isn't necessary to EXPECT them, nor is it a sign of anything like "the military doing its job."
Rather, it's a sign of the ENEMY doing its job.
Course, were you a vet, you'd already understand the implacable truth of the authors' observations.
FReegards,
at the risk of sounding like a certain ex-president, i think it depends on what the definition of "expect" is. I would want my fire department, EMS guys, and police force to "expect" fires, car crashes, robberies, etc..
I wouldn't want these things, but I would expect them as part of living in a (reasonably) free society.
I want our military to prosecute this and other conflicts aggressively; I think if we do so we will suffer casualties.
anyway, maybe we're picking at nits- I think the overall thrust of the article, that the press is getting their knickers in a twist, is a good one.
OTOH, a major reason that OBL attacked in the first place was the widespread belief that the U.S. was afraid to take casualties. He figured it would be more of the Clintonian same, and that we'd pull out after a few guys got killed.
The fact that we've taken casualties, and kept on blasting away (NB the Pentagon's report that half of those wounded are back in the fray) sends a very loud message to would-be bad guys.
That's Peters's major point.
Commanders have to make the D to put their soldiers into harms way, weighing casualties against gain - that is their job. The soldiers themselves have the job of trying to achieve the objectives given them. That they try to preserve their lives while doing this is more of a natural expectation that a part of their job description - just look at a few citations for posthumous VC's or Medals Of Honour etc. to see that preservation of life isn't even a constant or job requirement.